I've tried to show that the employment insurance system, despite the attempt to include part-time, temporary, and multiple job holders among the insured, still pivots on a full-time, full-year job, that is, on a 35-hour work week. I would argue, in response to your question, that it continues to pivot on a typical worker.
In my recommendations, I didn't have enough time to speak about maternity and parental benefits, which were of course introduced in 1971 and 1990 respectively. I should stress that they have also been negatively affected in certain respects by the shift from UI to EI, although the maximum weeks of benefits is quite a different question.
Because the hours system also applies to maternity and parental benefits, workers in part-time and temporary employment have trouble qualifying. Those who do qualify face lower income replacement rates and tend to take leaves of shorter duration. Women are required to have 600 hours to qualify for maternity and parental leave, as opposed to the previous requirement of 20 weeks with a minimum of 15 hours per week, or the equivalent of 300 hours.
Like regular benefits, EI maternity and parental benefits take this full-time, full-year job and 35-hour week as a norm, in essence penalizing women who lack full-time continuous employment and penalizing self-employed workers as well. Furthermore, although the parental benefits were extended to 35 weeks in 2000, with little change to the maximum benefit level, the weekly replacement rate has also effectively declined.
A low rate replacement rate and a low cap for maximum insurable earnings also create an incentive for the low-income earner in the household to take the leave, more so than the high-income earner. So even though parental leave is extended to both men and women, the gender segmentation, the sex segmentation in the labour market, affects who takes the benefits.
My colleague Katherine Marshall, at Statistics Canada, has furthermore shown that women who are in non-permanent work are almost five times more likely to return to work if they're able to qualify for EI maternity--five times more likely to return to work in less than nine months--compared to those with a permanent job. So the dynamics that I tried to describe around qualification, getting in the door, and exhaustion apply as well to maternity benefits, albeit in somewhat different ways.
I would say that most certainly the typical job remains the model both for EI regular benefits and for maternity benefits, although I chose to focus on regular benefits because of the recession and also in looking at what other witnesses have spoken of.
Thank you.